The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adverse possession, emphasizing the need for peaceful, open, and continuous possession adverse to the true owner, as well as the burden on the claimant to prove hostile assertion of title and continuity of possession.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs assails the reversing judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Jeypore in a suit for eviction and realization of arrear rent.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that their ancestor constructed four thatched rooms over plot no.621. Jagannath Mali, plaintiff no.2 verbally leased out those four rooms to K.Satyabatiamma, defendant no.1 in the year 1976. She occupied the same on 2.6.1976 and paid a sum of Rs.500/- to plaintiff no.2 with an understanding that the amount shall be adjusted in installments. Rs.40/- per month was fixed for all the four rooms. She advanced a sum of Rs.200/- to Jagannath Mali, plaintiff no.2. The plaintiffs had taken a sum of Rs.700/- towards advance. Since defendant no.1 did not pay any rent, plaintiff no.2 issued a legal notice to her demanding arrear rent and vacation of house. On 16.9.1980 defendant no.1 replied to the notice denying the occupation of the house on lease. While matter stood thus, she had constructed four thatched rooms over the vacant site. She is residing therein. The defendants had never constructed the thatched rooms. With this factual scenario, the suit has been instituted seeking the relief’s mentioned supra.

3. The defendants filed written statement pleading inter alia that the suit house was previously a vacant site. In the year 1950 the husband of defendant no.1 stayed in the house of his sister-in-law and constructed three huts over the same. They occupied the suit land. After death of her husband, the plaintiffs disclosed that they were the owners of the land in question. A meeting was convened. Nobody objected to the possession of the defendants. They applied to the Jeypore Municipality to assign the holding number in their favour. They are in possession of the site since 1950.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed nine issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary. Learned trial court decreed the suit holding that possession of the defendants is permissive. The defendants have failed to establish acquisition of title by way of adverse possession. Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the defendants filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Jeypore, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Jeypore and renumbered as T.A.No.16/89(25/88 of D.J.). Learned appellate court held that there is no document of title in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants are in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the plaintiffs for more than statutory period and, as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it allowed the appeal. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the appeal, appellant no.5 died, where after his legal heirs have been substituted. Similarly, respondent no.1 died, where after her legal heirs have been substituted.

5. The appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos. A and F of the appeal memo.

The same are:

"A. As to whether non-consideration of documentary evidence evidencing possession of the plaintiffs and permissive possession of the defendants would vitiate the findings of adverse possession.

F. As to whether the defendants having not proved the ingredients of adverse possession a finding can be given in their favour that they held the land beyond the period of limitation adversely to the interest of the plaintiffs."

6. Heard Mr. S.K. Samantray, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.

7. Mr. Samantray, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs are the owner in possession of the suit house. The R.O.R. has been published in their favour. They used to pay electric charges and holding tax to the authorities. Possession of the defendants is permissive. The finding of the learned appellate court that the defendants have perfected